MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Cost Analysis of Nonelective Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

2006· article· en· W1966539320 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe D. Violette, Kristian B. Filion, Seema Haider, Louise Pilote, Mark J. Eisenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiac Surgery · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal General HospitalJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous coronary interventionConfidence intervalConventional PCISurgeryArteryEmergency medicineInternal medicineMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggest that nonelective coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) is more costly than elective CABG. The goal of this study was to examine why cost differences exist between patients undergoing nonelective and elective CABG. METHODS: We compared the outcomes and costs of treating 1613 consecutive patients undergoing nonelective (N = 1071) and elective (N = 542) CABG at three U.S. hospitals. Participating centers each used the same cost accounting system to provide patient-level clinical and cost data. Total, direct, and overhead costs were examined as were department-level costs. RESULTS: Compared to elective patients, nonelective patients were of similar age (66.4 years vs 67.0 years, respectively, p = NS), but were more likely to be female (32.7% vs 24.0%, p = 0.0003). Nonelective patients had longer lengths of stay (LOS) than elective patients (9.7 +/- 0.2 days vs 6.6 +/- 0.3 days, p < 0.0001). The longer LOS among nonelective patients was primarily due to a longer preoperative LOS (2.6 +/- 0.08 days vs 0.4 +/- 0.05 days). Unadjusted in-hospital costs of treatment were 38% higher among nonelective patients ($25,111 +/-$550 vs $18,445 +/-$752, p < 0.0001). After controlling for baseline demographic and clinical differences, the increase in cost among nonelective patients was reduced to 33% (cost ratio = 1.33, 95% confidence interval = 1.27 to 1.39, p < 0.0001). The difference in cost among nonelective patients was further reduced to 16% after controlling for rates of preoperative angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), 14% after adjusting for the use of a pacemaker or a balloon pump, and 7% after adjusting for preoperative LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing nonelective CABG have longer LOS and higher costs than patients undergoing elective CABG. The increased cost among nonelective patients is largely due to differences in rates of preoperative LOS, angiography, and PCI. This differential reflects increased nonsurgical costs among patients undergoing nonelective CABG rather than surgical costs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiac SurgerySame topicCardiac and Coronary Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207